Transcript Highlights:

• expanded educational opportunities within the public school system and their opposition to diverting taxpayer
• This lack of regulation means taxpayer dollars would support institutions that do not adhere to the same
• The taxpayer money that we propose to use to fund these vouchers could go to the money much further if
• It sends taxpayer dollars to these private schools that are not accountable to Texas families.
• Using the hard-earned taxpayer dollars of every Texan to fund smaller class sizes, higher teacher pay

Bills: SB2 , SJR36 , SB2 , SB2 , SR29 , SB2

Transcript Highlights:

• So just quickly, no taxpayer-funded jobs should be exempt from honest evaluation and consequences.
• With regard to that, though, we also have to look at taxpayer money, so all of that is coming either
• directly or indirectly out of the taxpayer pocket.
• How do you make sure it's fair and the best thing for Oklahoma taxpayers?
• I think it's really important as we look at the taxpayers whose money is taken to pay for facilities

Bills: SB514 , SB346 , SB1593 , SB1782 , SB1366 , SB1497 , SB366 , SB1895 , SB2048 , SB2005 , SB2006 , SB710 , SB1480

Committee: Senate Education

Summary: The Senate Education Committee met for deadline week and first recognized guests and updates, including a report from Senator Devers on the Elgin school bus crash and recognition of 2025 Teacher of the Year Melissa Yvonne and visiting students from UCO and Darnaby Elementary. The committee then took up a series of education bills, with several authors explaining that some measures were work in progress and striking title on those bills to continue negotiations. Among the measures advanced were SB 514, clarifying alternative education programming through charter and virtual charter schools; SB 346, expanding school-to-school notification requirements about allegations or investigations involving teachers; SB 1593, updating outdated statutory references for the OSU-Tulsa board; SB 1366, using the Teacher Empowerment Fund to reward top teachers; SB 1497, correcting graduation standards to comply with IDEA and clarify alternate diplomas; SB 366, creating a process for charter schools to be notified about district facilities and lease or purchase opportunities; SB 1895, requiring districts to report whether they participate in the Community Eligibility Provision and why not; SB 2048, allowing the statewide charter school board to pay travel-related expenses for conferences and training; SB 710, allowing multiple grants under the Teach Forward teacher-prep program; and SB 1480, creating a pilot youth apprenticeship program. Most of these bills passed on bipartisan votes, often after questions about implementation, fiscal impact, or scope. Two of the more debated measures were SB 1782, which would end new tenure plans for higher education employees and move new hires to five-year contracts, and SB 2005, which would restructure the OSSAA board. SB 1782 passed 6-4 after extended debate over constitutional authority, academic freedom, recruitment, and litigation risk, with supporters arguing it would increase flexibility and accountability and opponents warning about legal and retention concerns. SB 2005 failed 4-6 after members split over whether the legislature should intervene in OSSAA governance; supporters said the association was not responsive enough to member schools and families, while opponents argued the issue should be left to the organization and that the bill risked government overreach.

Transcript Highlights:

• But more important, it includes 10 members of taxpayers, including businesses, including CPAs, including
• Eric Lundberg here, fifth-generation taxpayer, and I oppose this bill.
• We the taxpayers have been taxed enough already, and this is just an attempt to rob Peter to pay Paul
• The six-month grace period is included for taxpayers with qualifying existing contracts whose business
• The waiver of penalties is available to any taxpayer that has time. 31st, 2026.

Committee: House Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> would clearly show how the taxpayer would clearly show how the taxpayer money<01:14:12.960><c> is
• </c> here are responsible for taxpayer here are responsible for taxpayer money<01:38:27.159><c> here<
• um in my community those taxpayers um in my community those property<03:53:41.720><c> taxpayers</c><
• But the amount of money we spend, don't you agree, is coming from property taxpayers?
• </c> agree is coming from property taxpayers agree is coming from property taxpayers it<03:55:56.880>

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 402, a bill to repeal a provision in RSA 194-F:2 stating that Education Freedom Account (EFA) funds “shall not constitute taxable income” to the parent or student. The bill sponsor argued the current language is misleading because the state cannot determine federal tax liability, and said the bill would simply remove inaccurate tax advice from state law. He cited IRS guidance and prior federal legislation, including a Ted Cruz proposal, to suggest some EFA uses may be taxable under federal law, while others may not, and said the bill could be amended if needed to avoid confusion. Testimony was sharply divided. Py Campbell opposed the bill, arguing it would unfairly single out EFA students and could amount to a tax on education funds, including for self-employed families, and recommended it be voted inexpedient to legislate. Stephen Matthew French, a tax preparer, also opposed the bill, saying IRS Publication 970 already makes clear that scholarship-type payments used for tuition and related expenses are not taxable, and that the bill addresses a problem that does not exist. He warned that adding tax reporting requirements could create administrative costs for families and the program administrator. Bill Ardinger, a tax attorney, supported the repeal of the statutory language, saying the state should not place potentially incorrect tax advice into law. He explained that under federal tax law, only certain scholarship-like uses are exempt, while many EFA-eligible expenses may not be, especially for families using the program for homeschooling or other nontraditional expenses. He said the current statute could mislead families into thinking all EFA payments are tax-free and could expose the state to future legal problems. The hearing ended after questions from committee members; no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a taxpayer in North Dakota and protecting.
• present a claim on behalf of that taxpayer and all similarly situated taxpayers.
• Any taxpayer in our county can represent themselves and other taxpayers and bring an abatement claim,
• I mean, we can withhold money from them, but we're really hurting the taxpayer.
• Senator Paulson's point was it doesn't help the taxpayers because you're pulling this money back.

Committee: Joint Legislative Audit and Fiscal Review Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> protecting taxpayer protecting taxpayer resources.<00:27:47.840><c> Legislators</c><00:27:48.640
• </c> taxpayers, not just regulators. taxpayers, not just regulators.
• It does not put us in taxpayer dollars.
• Um, the need to provide taxpayers.
• </c> pools handle millions of taxpayer pools handle millions of taxpayer dollars<04:29:26.159><c> and

Summary: The committee first took up SB 297 and a new amendment, 2462, which combined the original Senate bill with the Carson amendment and added a proposed alternative regulatory system, RSA 420R. The chair and members discussed that the amendment was intended to give the Senate what it had asked for while also creating a dual system for public entity risk pools. Members asked whether the new structure would affect ownership or governance of health trusts, and the chair explained that 420R would be a separate regulatory statute while existing 420J-style arrangements could remain in place. The committee also noted that a paragraph had been accidentally deleted from the amendment and that another amendment would be prepared to correct it, with the subcommittee recessed while that was done. Public testimony focused on School Care, represented by Executive Director Lisa Ducette, who opposed the shift to Department of Insurance oversight under 420R. She argued that public entity risk pools are not insurance companies, that they are accountable to member entities and taxpayers, and that the proposed dual regulation would add unnecessary costs through examinations, higher reserves, and additional accounting requirements. She said the change could threaten tax-exempt status and create an uneven playing field, and she urged the committee to support SB 297 with the Carson amendment instead of moving to 420R. Committee members questioned whether the amendment would actually affect pools that stayed under the Secretary of State model, and one member cited support from the New Hampshire Municipal Association for the dual system. The discussion then shifted to amendment 245 on ambulance reimbursement and contracting timelines. Members reviewed a provision giving insurers 45 days and ambulance providers 60 days in the contracting process, and one member suggested making both periods 60 days. The chair and others said the current language was intentional and part of a broader compromise aimed at ending balance billing and forcing insurers to establish reimbursement rates. Members noted that the measure was unusual and that its effects would be reviewed over the next two years, with one member saying the bill would likely be difficult to roll back later. No final vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Taxpayer money, so every one of us get to pay for somebody to put a new wastewater system in.
• That is our responsibility to the taxpayers, for the safekeeping of that money.
• We're not asking to Safeguard the taxpayers' money, and that's all we're asking in this.
• However, I do like local control and fiscal promulgated rules. taxpayers.
• I think the taxpayers need to be guarded and fully protected, and I'd like to see that assured, taxpayers

Committee: House Local Government, Elections and Pensions

Summary: The Local Government Committee first met in executive session and voted do pass on two House committee substitutes: House Bills 3283 and 3306 passed 11-1, and House Bills 1728, 2161, and 1830 passed 12-1. The committee then moved into public hearings. Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 914, dealing with septic system regulation, was presented as a measure to replace percolation testing with soil morphology testing as the baseline standard and to address a permit fee issue. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill would improve accuracy, consumer protection, and local public health administration; one witness noted the continuing-education language already exists in regulation and pointed out a minor wording change in the substitute. No opposition testified. House Bill 3467, sponsored by Representative Houseman, would allow county developmental disability boards to seek voter approval for a sales tax of up to one-half of 1% if property tax revenue is reduced or eliminated. The sponsor and multiple witnesses from county disability boards, sheltered workshops, and related associations said the bill was intended as a safeguard to preserve services, transportation, employment supports, and community-based care for people with developmental disabilities. Some members raised concerns about shifting from property tax to sales tax and the burden on low-income taxpayers, while others supported the measure as a revenue-diversification tool. No vote was taken. House Bill 312, relating to county treasurer duties and bank signature authority, drew testimony from the sponsor, county treasurers, auditors, and association representatives. Supporters said the bill clarifies that the county treasurer should have sole authority over county funds and reflects current practice, while also noting a forthcoming amendment to address what happens when a treasurer is absent. Some witnesses asked for stronger safeguards, including a bonded backup designee and clearer succession procedures, and one witness urged updating surety-bond requirements. The hearing closed with no opposition testimony and no committee action taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Minnesota taxpayers footed the bill for the cleanup and rebuilding.
• . taxpayers. taxpayers.
• ><c> bill</c><00:05:13.480><c> for</c> Minnesota taxpayers footed the bill for Minnesota taxpayers footed
• Again, Minnesota taxpayers paid the $77 million in cleanup.
• </c> Minnesota taxpayers. Minnesota taxpayers.

Summary: Rep. Athena Hollins and Sen. Ann Johnson Stewart introduced Minnesota’s proposed climate superfund bill, describing it as a way to make major historical greenhouse gas polluters help pay for climate adaptation and infrastructure repair. They said the bill would target large fossil fuel corporations with significant emissions and use the revenue for projects such as stormwater upgrades, bridge and roof protection, erosion control, drinking water protection, cooling cities, and other resilience work. Both lawmakers framed the proposal as a matter of accountability and fairness, arguing that Minnesotans should not keep paying for damage caused by companies that profited from fossil fuel pollution. Several supporters testified in favor of the bill, including St. Paul City Council Vice President Nyang Kheimey, former legislator and medical student Hunter Cantrell, Unidos Minnesota volunteer Bonnie Becol, and 100% Minnesota’s Aurora Vautrin. They emphasized local climate impacts such as flooding, wildfire smoke, extreme heat, emerald ash borer damage, asthma, and infrastructure failures, and said the costs are increasingly falling on taxpayers, local governments, and vulnerable communities. Kheimey highlighted municipal needs and St. Paul’s own climate investments, while Cantrell focused on environmental racism and health harms, and Becol and Vautrin stressed species loss, community recovery costs, and the burden on residents. In the question-and-answer portion, Hollins and Johnson Stewart explained that the bill would apply to fossil fuel corporations with at least 1 billion metric tons of carbon emissions and a nexus to Minnesota, not local utilities. They said the State Auditor’s office would determine the assessments owed by companies, while the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency would hold the fund and administer grants. They also said they were looking to models in Vermont and New York and hoped the proposal could attract bipartisan support because it is tied to affordability and shifting costs away from taxpayers and onto polluters. No vote or formal committee action was taken in the transcript, and the event ended with the sponsors opening the bill to questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We think it's a common-sense taxpayer protection for Arizona's two largest cities.
• SB 1745 arguably doesn't go far enough in protecting local taxpayers, because SB 1745 arguably doesn't
• But yet you don't support doing that in taxpayer-funded libraries. Right, I do not.
• How would taxpayers like to see that happen?
• We keep concerns about affordability in our state, and there's no clear benefit to taxpayers.

Committee: Senate Senate Government Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee approved the February 4, 2026 minutes and first held SB 1571. It then heard and advanced SB 1745, which would cap transaction privilege/excise tax rates in cities of 550,000 or more at 2.5% per classification unless voters approve a higher rate, with enforcement through the attorney general and state-shared revenue withholding for violations. Supporters argued it would protect taxpayers and restrain large-city tax increases; the bill was amended with a technical change and passed 4-3. The committee also advanced SB 1686, renaming Wesley Bolin Memorial Plaza as the Wesley Bolin and Charlie Kirk Freedom Plaza and authorizing memorial placements for Don Bowles and Charlie Kirk, which passed 4-3. The committee then took up SB 1567 and SB 1435, both aimed at restricting public entities, schools, and libraries from exposing minors to sexually explicit materials and from using public facilities for sexually explicit filming or access. Supporters said the bills were needed to prevent children from being exposed to pornography and to keep taxpayer resources from facilitating such material; opponents, including the ACLU, warned the definitions were broad, could chill speech, and could criminalize librarians and educators for handling literary or educational works. Both bills were amended and passed 4-3. SB 1435 also drew testimony about library access, sex education, and the risk of overbroad enforcement. The committee next considered SB 1433 and SB 1434, which would reorganize Maricopa County boundaries. SB 1433 would move portions of Maricopa County into neighboring counties, while SB 1434 would split Maricopa County into three new counties with a transition board and special elections. Supporters argued Maricopa County had become too large and unmanageable and that smaller counties would improve representation and water and regional governance; opponents said the proposals were costly, disruptive, and politically motivated. Both measures received due pass recommendations, with SB 1433 passing 4-3 and SB 1434 passing 4-3 with one not voting. Finally, the committee approved SCR 1024, requiring legislators to live in their district for one year before election, and SCR 1025, moving the legislative session start to the fourth Monday in January; both resolutions passed unanimously or near-unanimously, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We think it's a common-sense taxpayer protection for Arizona's two largest cities.
• SB 1745 arguably doesn't go far enough in protecting local taxpayers, because...
• SB 1745 arguably doesn't go far enough in protecting local taxpayers, because it does not prohibit cities
• But yet you don't support doing that in taxpayer-funded libraries. Right, I do not.
• How would taxpayers like to see that happen?

Bills: SB1433 , SB1434 , SB1435 , SB1567 , SB1571 , SB1686 , SB1745 , SCR1024 , SCR1025 , HB2671 , HB2676 , HCR2044

Committees: Senate Government , Senate Senate Government Committee of Reference

Keywords: county boundaries, Maricopa, Gila, Pinal, Yavapai, Yuma, La Paz, local governance, Arizona Revised Statutes, Maricopa county, county division, new counties, intergovernmental agreements, special election, shared use agreements, education, explicit material, parental consent, student protection, library access

Transcript Highlights:

• American taxpayer.
• ><c> are</c><04:45:09.680><c> being</c> So, American taxpayer dollars are being So, American taxpayer
• That is theft from other taxpayers.
• </c> illegal aliens to the American taxpayer illegal aliens to the American taxpayer was<04:55:11.120
• American taxpayers permanently.

Transcript Highlights:

• We project that Watertown's residential taxpayers will face an 18% hike in '27 as we once again would
• I'm here as the other elected official in the room on behalf of my residential taxpayers, who are going
• Alexandria is our largest taxpayer.
• They are a super good corporate neighbor... ...our largest taxpayer.
• This approach supports our climate goals, it protects local taxpayers, and it helps get cleaner buses

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Revenue

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a hybrid hearing on 17 late-file and miscellaneous bills, with testimony focused on several local tax and fee proposals. The first major item was H. 4687 for Watertown, which would permanently continue a special property tax classification allowing the city to maintain a 50% residential minimum factor and a 175% commercial shift. Watertown officials and local legislators said the measure is needed to prevent an estimated 18% residential tax increase when the current temporary authority expires, arguing that the city’s commercial growth and 1988 tax rules have created an unintended burden on homeowners, especially seniors. Committee members asked about the regional business impact, whether major taxpayers might leave, and why a permanent change was sought instead of another short extension; Watertown officials said the policy had not deterred commercial growth and that the city’s fiscal planning and stabilization funds were being used for schools, infrastructure, and bond rating support. The committee also heard H. 4435 from Charlemont, which would authorize a local tax on commercial recreation services. Town officials described Charlemont as a small rural community with a large visitor burden from skiing, rafting, and other recreation, saying police, fire, and EMS costs rise sharply during peak seasons and that the tax would help shift some of those costs to visitors rather than local residents. A committee member questioned the legal structure of taxing recreation services versus goods, but the town said the proposal was modeled on the meals and rooms tax and had local business support. Finally, testimony was taken on H. 4722, promoting fair tax treatment for zero-emission vehicles, especially electric school buses and Class 3-8 trucks. Supporters, including EV advocates, a school transportation company, and Rep. Gentile, said the bill would cap sales and excise taxes on EV vehicles at the level of comparable diesel vehicles to remove an unintended tax penalty, keep revenue neutral, and support the state’s climate goals while helping school districts and private bus operators manage higher upfront costs. Rep. Gentile also spoke in support of H. 4755, which would amend Sudbury’s means-tested senior property tax exemption so the town would not need new special legislation if the program is renewed again in the future. No votes were taken, and the hearing concluded after public testimony and committee questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• According to the Department of Revenue, it would impact approximately 450 taxpayers and increase state
• According to the Department of Revenue, it would impact approximately 450 taxpayers and increase state
• However, a Department of Revenue review found that 65% of the taxpayer savings resulting from that tax
• savings resulting from the tax preference... ...that 65% of the taxpayer savings resulting from the
• These can be one of the largest taxpayers.

Bills: HB1960 , HB2194 , HB2089

Committee: House Finance

Keywords: HB1960, renewable energy, clean energy, solar, wind, battery storage, energy storage, excise tax, property tax exemption, local investment, county revenue sharing, local taxing districts, school districts, Department of Revenue, Department of Commerce, model ordinance, siting, permitting, tribal consultation, tribal capacity grants

Transcript Highlights:

• Taxpayers to see. We need consistency in this regard.
• It should go back to the taxpayers. It's their money. It's their money.
• If the taxpayer has a balance due, it may be beneficial to have the taxpayer come forward and pay the
• If the taxpayer has a balance due, it may be beneficial to have the taxpayer come forward and pay the
• I think the taxpayer would get benefit out of this.

Bills: HB2720 , HB2073 , SB5816 , SB5919 , SB5831 , SB6244 , SB6044 , SB5109 , SB5877 , SB6258

Keywords: behavioral health, emergency services, health insurance, provider access, mental health funding, premium assistance, funding, healthcare, subsidies, juice grapes, agriculture, commerce, state regulation, market access, fire safety, insurance incentives, best practices, community protection, voluntary measures, mortgage modification

Transcript Highlights:

• Part of being a public servant is to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars.
• And it will be the taxpayers who ultimately bear the costs of these social harms.
• that were absolutely against the will of the taxpayer.
• But we also have the taxpayers' right not to have their money used against them.
• The taxpayers will even cover the legal fees. How is that responsible.

Bills: SB5 , SB11 , SB12 , SB 5 , SB 11 , SB 12

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• That means that we have taxpayers instead of prisoners, and that means that uh these folks who reenter
• That means that we have taxpayers<00:04:57.400><c> instead</c><00:04:57.800><c> of</c><00:04:57.919><
• c> prisoners,</c><00:04:59.160><c> and</c><00:04:59.320><c> that</c> taxpayers instead of prisoners,
• and that taxpayers instead of prisoners, and that means<00:04:59.960><c> that</c><00:05:00.760><c> uh
• instead of the taxpayer supporting their families. families. families.

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> giant waste of taxpayer money. giant waste of taxpayer money.
• So, let's vote for taxpayer money.
• They cost the taxpayers more.
• </c> for the taxpayers or the communities. for the taxpayers or the communities.
• </c><05:52:52.320><c> Incarceration</c> taxpayers more. Incarceration taxpayers more.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um and that again, that 400,000 is a win for all taxpayers.
• We're making good solid all taxpayers.
• That'll be borne directly by your county property taxpayers.
• You want to walk away from 4,500 taxpayers? Is that your call?
• House. >> No. >> So, the motion fails. taxpayers will be taken care of. taxpayers will be taken care

Summary: The committee of conference on HB 155 continued discussion of a compromise over business tax relief, small-business filing thresholds, and nursing home funding. Representative Sweeney proposed raising the filing threshold to $400,000 and creating a trigger for future Business Enterprise Tax reductions if business tax revenues produce a $200 million biennial surplus, with the Department of Revenue Administration commissioner able to exclude one-time or non-sustainable funds. Supporters said the proposal would provide a clear policy direction, immediate relief to about 4,500 small and micro businesses, and a future path back to the BET’s original 0.25% rate. Opponents, led by the Senate side, argued the trigger language was premature, better handled in a budget year with more revenue data, and inappropriate to decide in a short conference committee meeting. The Senate also emphasized that the tax policy should not be locked in without a fuller public process, while House members argued the trigger would not take effect until a future biennium and was therefore a prudent way to signal New Hampshire’s direction on taxes. A separate point of discussion involved nursing homes: the House said its report would include $2.5 million for nursing homes with non-lapsing language, and senators stressed the importance of that funding for the health care system and county property taxpayers. One senator warned that triggers could encourage revenue underestimation and noted bond rating concerns about a structural deficit. Several motions were made to accept the Senate position with the $400,000 threshold and related amendments, but the first motion failed on a party-line style split, with the Senate voting yes and the House voting no. A second House motion to accede to the Senate position while also including the nursing home funding, the threshold increase, and the future trigger language was also rejected by the Senate. The meeting ended with the report filed without agreement on the trigger language, and the transcript then notes a separate reconvened committee of conference on HB 751 being postponed until 12:30 the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> businesses, on our taxpayers. businesses, on our taxpayers.
• Here, you're bringing forth a bill that's going to spend a half a million dollars of the taxpayers' money
• '</c> half a million dollars of the taxpayers' half a million dollars of the taxpayers' money,<00:19:
• So that's what I of our taxpayer money.
• </c> for far too long and cost taxpayers for far too long and cost taxpayers billions<00:20:36.720><c

Transcript Highlights:

• We know that we need to support the taxpayer community, but we just We need to support the taxpayer community
• With respect to the tax gap information, Managing taxpayer dollars.
• Then there's the education component with our taxpayers.
• I think the other risk that that places is taxpayers.
• Number one is to adjudicate taxpayer protests.

Summary: The committee first heard a budget presentation for the Office of Information Technology Services (ITS), which is in the middle of a multi-year consolidation of IT staff and functions from other agencies. The analyst and administrator explained that ITS now has 243 authorized FTP, with more growth expected as Health and Welfare IT staff move over, and that much of ITS’s budget is driven by personnel, security, and pass-through technology purchases funded through dedicated revenues. The agency’s main 2027 requests included a personnel cash transfer to move costs off general fund and onto dedicated funds, $2.7 million for enterprise firewall/security upgrades, continued access to a federal E-CORE grant for an AI/data repository project, and funding for the Health and Welfare modernization/consolidation. Members asked about the grant, the 3% holdback, whether Health and Welfare’s budget would be reduced, the cost of delaying security upgrades, and why the agency’s FTP count has grown while overall IT costs are being centralized. ITS Administrator Alberto Gonzalez emphasized that the agency is defending against more than 100 million cyberattacks per month, with only a small fraction getting through, and said the firewall request was a critical security need. He said consolidation has produced efficiencies and a net reduction in IT personnel statewide, while also improving security and service delivery. He also explained that the agency is working on a possible policy change to separate continuously appropriated cash into a different fund for cleaner accounting. Questions from members focused on cybersecurity, bandwidth pressures from video/body-cam traffic, procurement speed, AI uses, and the rationale for office furnishings and equipment requests tied to the Health and Welfare move. The committee then moved to the Idaho State Tax Commission budget, another roughly $55 million portfolio with five programs and 447 authorized FTP. The analyst noted that the commission’s budget is heavily general-fund supported, but it also has several dedicated funds and large continuously appropriated flows tied to tax distributions and rebates. For fiscal year 2027, the commission requested additional dedicated-fund support for property tax outreach, $400,000 for GenTax automation, use of dedicated funds for the chief operating officer, replacement items, and the governor’s rescission. Chairman Jeff McRae said the agency returns more than $7.8 billion in revenue for about $55 million in spending, but warned the commission is at a “tipping point” where further cuts would reduce its ability to process revenue and serve taxpayers. Members questioned the commission about phone wait times, staffing levels, the multi-state tax compact, conformity work tied to the federal “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” and the parental choice tax credit program. McRae said the call center would need about 45 staff to meet standard service levels but currently has about seven, and that conformity changes would require significant software, form, and testing work, likely with overtime and possible taxpayer filing delays. He also explained that the tax credit program was designed with electronic-only applications, income prioritization, audits, and criminal penalties to reduce fraud. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided; the meeting consisted of budget presentations, member questions, and agency responses.